Following Tuesday’s episode , and the subsequent tweets from Mock and Morgan, Mock returned to Piers Morgan Live on Wednesday. Despite some tense moments in their interview, a follow-up segment featured three guests — none of whom are trans — debating Mock’s decisions and comments on and after the show.

To sum things up, from Dorsey Shaw:

vine.co

Then, the panel:

In Russia, Olympics compete against you! Follow @SochiFails for more of this.

View Entire List ›

“A new low in Russian tradecraft.” Meanwhile, Nuland apologizes to the EU.

Vasily Fedosenko / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Top U.S. officials are strongly suggesting that Russia is responsible for recording and releasing the tape of a phone call between the top U.S. diplomat for Europe and the ambassador to Ukraine.

"Certainly we think this is a new low in Russian tradecraft in terms of publicizing and posting this," said State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki in the daily press briefing. "I don't have any other independent details about the origin of the YouTube video."

A woman who sounds like Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland was caught on tape talking to U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoff Pyatt about cutting deals in internal Ukrainian politics, with Nuland appearing to favor one opposition leader over another. Nuland is also heard to say "fuck the EU" on the call. News of the tape, which has not been independently verified, was first reported in the Kyiv Post.

Psaki said that a senior Russian official had been the first to tweet about the call, and that "this is something they've been actively promoting, posting about, tweeting about." The official that tweeted the call was an aide to Russian deputy prime minister Dmitry Rogozin, the Associated Press reported.

Asked if she was saying that the Russians had spied on the call, Psaki said, "Certainly if it was recorded and broadcast that would be that. It would be violating a private conversation."

Psaki refused to confirm the conversation, saying that she was "not going to confirm private diplomatic conversations."

But without confirming the tape, Psaki said that Nuland had apologized to her EU counterparts for "the content of the reports."

The candid conversation heard on the call "shouldn't be a surprise," Psaki said. "Of course these things are being discussed. It doesn't change the fact that it's up to the people of Ukraine to determine what the path forward is."

"We have opinions about a range of issues, that shouldn't be a surprise," Psaki said.

In the White House daily briefing, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney also strongly implied that the Russians were behind the tape.

"You know, I would say, since the video was first noted and tweeted out by the Russian government, I think it says something about Russia's role. But the content of the conversation is not something I'm going to comment on," Carney said.

Carney said he was not directly saying that Russians had taped the call, but was "just noting that they tweeted it out."

A phone call is leaked that appears to expose a conversation between a top U.S. State Department official and the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. Updated with comments from Jay Carney

Updated 1:44 p.m.

WASHINGTON — The United States' top diplomat for European affairs appears to have been caught on tape saying "fuck the EU" in a leaked phone call with the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.

The Kyiv Post, an English-language newspaper in Ukraine, published the tape on Thursday. The recording's veracity has not been independently verified.

The phone call appears to show Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland discussing the political situation in Ukraine with a man who sounds to be Ambassador Geoff Pyatt and weighing the merits of different opposition leaders.

A woman who sounds like Nuland says, "I don't think it's a good idea" for opposition leader Vitaly Klitschko to be given a role in the government. She appears to favor the idea of having Arseniy Yatseniuk, another opposition leader, as the new prime minister, saying he has "the economic experience, the governing experience."

She then tells a man who sounds like Pyatt that the United Nations agreed to send someone to help "glue" the deal.

"And you know, fuck the EU," Nuland says.

"Exactly," Pyatt says.

It is unclear how the phone call was recorded, who recorded it, and when exactly it is from, but the Kyiv Post notes that it appears to be from after the Jan. 25 offer by President Victor Yanukovych to bring on Yatseniuk as prime minister and Klitschko as deputy prime minister. Both leaders refused the offer.

"We have no comment at this time," a spokesperson for the U.S. Embassy in Kiev told BuzzFeed. A spokesperson for Nuland did not immediately return a request for comment.

"The EU is engaged in helping the people of Ukraine through the current political crisis. We don't comment on alleged leaked telephone conversations," Maja Kocijancic, a spokesperson for EU foreign policy chief Cathy Ashton, told BuzzFeed.

In the daily White House briefing on Thursday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney implied that Russia was responsible for the tape.

"I'm not going to comment on the content of, you know, private diplomatic conversations," Carney said. "You know, I would say, since the video was first noted and tweeted out by the Russian government, I think it says something about Russia's role. But the content of the conversation is not something I'm going to comment on."

Asked if he was saying Russia had tapped the phone call, Carney said "I'm not. I'm just noting that they tweeted it out."

Max Seddon contributed reporting from Kiev, Ukraine.

Senate Democrats couldn’t garner enough Republican votes to get their latest proposal passed a procedural vote.

Larry Downing / Reuters

WASHINGTON — The Senate was unable move forward on a plan to extend the federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation program Thursday, 40 days after the program expired Dec. 28.

The measure failed 58-40. Four Republicans — Sens. Dean Heller, Kelly Ayotte, Lisa Murkowski, and Susan Collins — crossed party lines to support it. Sixty votes were needed to clear the procedural hurdle.

More than 1.7 million Americans so far have not received their benefits since Congress failed to renew the program at the end of last year. The program provides extra assistance for job seekers who have used up their state benefits.

The latest proposal would have provided for a three month extension of unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed. The extension, which has an estimated cost of $6.4 billion, would have been paid for in full by "pension smoothing," which involves changes to the federal retirement system.

Democrats tried to win over additional support by including a provision proposed by Sen. Tom Coburn, which would prevent millionaires from receiving the benefits.

If the Senate does eventually pass an extension, the House has shown no sign that it would even hold a vote on the matter.

The president will raise money for the Democratic Party at two upcoming events over the coming month.

Olivier Douliery/Abaca Press / MCT

WASHINGTON — Less than a week after the Republican National Committee announced it out-raised its Democratic counterpart by more than $18 million in 2013, the Democratic National Committee sent an email to its finance list Thursday announcing President Obama will host two DNC fundraisers in the next month.

BuzzFeed obtained a copy of the DNC email, which was sent by Clayton Cox, the DNC's finance director for the south and Florida, to a list called "flsouthfinance." It details two Obama DNC fundraising events.

The first will be in Washington on Feb. 28 and is described as a "Discussion with President Barack Obama." The second will be held in Boston on March 5 and is described as a "Dinner with President Barack Obama."

With the big spending months of the 2014 cycle just around the corner, the DNC finds itself behind the RNC in the money race. The RNC raised more than $80 million last year and began 2014 with more than $9 million cash-on-hand and zero debt. The DNC raised around $62 million last year, and begins 2014 with around $5 million cash-on-hand and slightly less than $16 million in debt from 2012.

The White House referred questions about the fundraising dates to the DNC.

“We must all raise our voices against attacks on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or intersex people,” Ban Ki-moon tells the International Olympic Committee. The IOC ignored those comments in its press release about the event, while media reports highlighted them.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon (left) is handed an Olympic torch by International Olympic Committee President Thomas Bach.

AP Photo/David Goldman

Earlier Thursday, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon addressed the International Olympic Committee. Here's how the IOC announced the remarks:

What the IOC failed to mention was an extensive portion of Ki-moon's speech, where he said:

View Video ›

youtube.com

President Bach,
Distinguished IOC members,
Ladies and gentlemen,

Sports can help advance human rights.

Last year, the United Nations marked the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination by focusing on the power of sport. We are all aware of the need to combat ugly and hurtful racist displays at sporting matches.

And this past December, the theme of Human Rights Day was "Sport comes out against homophobia."

Many professional athletes, gay and straight, are speaking out against prejudice.

We must all raise our voices against attacks on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex people. We must oppose the arrests, imprisonments and discriminatory restrictions they face.

I know that Principle 6 of the Olympic Charter enshrines the IOC's opposition to any form of discrimination.

The United Nations stands strongly behind our own "Free and Equal" campaign, and I look forward to working with the IOC, Governments and other partners around the world to build societies of equality and tolerance.

Hatred of any kind must have no place in the 21st century.

Via olympic.org

View Entire List ›

Senate Intelligence Committee chairwoman California Sen. Dianne Feinstein said on CNN that her advice to those going to the Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia should avoid crowds and “watch their backs” to be safe.

View Video ›

Choo. Choo. Choo.

"I really want to drive a train."

AP Photo/Cliff Owen

"Now THAT is more like it."

Via AP Photo/Matt Rourke

"Sup, bitches."

"Train." "Conducting."

View Entire List ›

Congressmen seek to pull funding from universities that boycott Israel. But — the First Amendment. Updated with comments from Eugene Volokh, Michael Dorf, and Abe Foxman.

Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.).

Alex Wong / Getty Images

Updated - 2:19 a.m., Feb. 7

WASHINGTON — Two of the major Jewish groups are not planning to back a new bill that seeks to pull federal funding from universities that boycott Israel, according to a source familiar with the situation.

"The legislation is almost certainly unconstitutional, it's a bad law, and it reinforces stereotypes about Jewish influence," said one pro-Israel Democratic strategist familiar with the groups' thinking. "It's so bad that AIPAC and ADL oppose it."

"There's no way they'll say they support it," the strategist said.

The bill, introduced by two Illinois members of Congress, Rep. Peter Roskam, a Republican, and Rep. Dan Lipinski, a Democrat, would take away all federal funding from American universities that decide to boycott Israeli institutions. "It is ludicrous for critics to go after our democratic friend and ally Israel when they should be focusing on the evils perpetrated by repressive, authoritarian regimes like Iran and North Korea," Roskam told the Washington Free Beacon, which first reported the existence of the bill.

The bill is a response to the American Studies Association's boycott of Israeli academic institutions.

But the bill appears not to be getting traction even among some of the pro-Israel groups who have battled the boycott. Two of the most important Jewish groups in the U.S., the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the Anti-Defamation League, are said to have no plans to support the bill.

Asked if the group had taken a position on the bill, an AIPAC official said on Thursday that the organization had received the bill and was reviewing it.

"We welcome any effort to challenge or fight the boycott, divestment and sanctions in colleges and universities," said Abe Foxman, director of the ADL. "However well-intentioned, we are not sure that this bill would be the most effective means of recourse."

The bill's sponsors said they had weighed constitutional concerns.

"These organizations are clearly free to do what they want to do under the First Amendment," Roskam said on the House floor on Tuesday, "but the American taxpayer doesn't have to subsidize it."

But that argument has proved a hard sell.

"Even the Jewish groups won't go along with them," the strategist said of the bill's authors. "It's partisan, it's meant to embarrass Democrats."

At the heart of their objections is the notion of the federal attempt to regulate academic speech, something a top First Amendment lawyer, Floyd Abrams, told BuzzFeed should be a major concern.

"The notion that the power to fund colleges and their faculties may be transformed into a tool to punish them for engaging in constitutionally protected expression is contrary to any notion of academic freedom and to core First Amendment principles," Abrams, a lawyer at Cahill Gordon and Reindel, said. "I believe that academic boycotts are themselves contrary to principles of academic freedom but that does not make the legislation being considered any more tolerable or constitutional."

"As a general matter, government has considerably greater latitude to deny funding to speech and speakers with which it disagrees than it has to censor speech directly," said Michael Dorf, a constitutional scholar and law professor at Cornell. "However, there are First Amendment limits to the funding power. Under the so-called 'unconstitutional conditions' doctrine, efforts to coerce — rather than merely to avoid funding — can run afoul of the First Amendment. Moreover, the Supreme Court's cases have recognized that the First Amendment restrictions on the funding power are more robust when the entity to be funded (or defunded) is a university."

But Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA and author of the Volokh Conspiracy blog, said he thought the bill was likely constitutional.

"I think the bill would indeed be constitutional," Volokh said. "Grove City College v. Bell (1984) held that the government may, despite the First Amendment, attach a no-sex-discrimination condition to government funds. Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (2010) held that a public university may, despite the First Amendment, require all groups that receive university benefits to accept all students, without excluding anyone. Likewise, the government may require recipients of federal funds not to discriminate against Israeli academics or institutions (or, more narrowly, not to boycott such academics or institutions)."

A spokesperson for Roskam did not immediately return a request for comment.

“Doesn’t mean I’m the only guy that can do it. But if no one else, I think, can, and I think I can, then I’d run. If I don’t, I won’t.”

In an exclusive interview with CNN, New Day's Kate Bolduan asked Vice President Joe Biden for a reason other than Corvettes, not to run for president.

"I can't," Biden said.

"For me the decision to run, or not to run, is going to be determined by me, as to whether I am the best qualified person to focus on the two things I've spent my whole life on: giving ordinary people a fighting change to make it, and a sound foreign policy that's based on rational interest in the United States."

Infighting and backbiting that has crippled the movement plays out on Twitter, 140 characters at a time.

Occupy Wall Street is dead — but its Twitter account is alive, and it's become a fascinating hotbed of infighting between rival factions of the group that once slept out in New York's Zuccotti Park.

Activist Justine Tunney, a Google engineer, has wrested control of the main @OccupyWallSt Twitter account away from other activists and is taking shots at important figures from the movement, including academic David Graeber, considered by some to be the intellectual father of Occupy. Though Tunney founded the account in 2011, other activists once had access to it. The big question: Who founded Occupy?

"I was the founding organizer of this movement," Tunney tweeted from @OccupyWallSt on Thursday. "But prejudiced people have always tried to deny me a voice in this movement."

Tunney noticed that Google names organizer Justin Wedes as the founder of Occupy, and asked followers to put a stop to it:

(White is a former editor at the magazine Adbusters, which put out the original call for people to organize in lower Manhattan in 2011. His personal website describes him as "the American creator of the Occupy Wall Street meme.")

Tunney then went after David Graeber:

View Entire List ›

Reports that AIPAC doesn’t support the bill are “mischaracterizations,” AIPAC president Michael Kassen says weeks before the organization’s yearly conference.

Sen. Menendez speaking at the AIPAC policy conference last year.

Mark Wilson / Getty Images

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is seeking to reassure its members that it has not dropped its support for the Iran sanctions bill that is stalled in the Senate, despite yesterday saying it should not immediately come to a vote.

A letter sent from AIPAC president Michael Kassen to members, forwarded to BuzzFeed by a source, says that the press mischaracterized AIPAC's position on the bill:

I am writing today to correct some mischaracterizations in the press regarding our position on the Senate Iran bill. Some have suggested that by not calling for an immediate vote on the legislation, we have abandoned our support for the bill. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In fact, we remain strongly committed to the passage of the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act. This legislation is one important part of a broad strategy that we have pursued over many years to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. As negotiations for a final agreement with Iran begin, we must—and will—continue our efforts on every front to ensure that any deal with Iran guarantees the dismantlement of its nuclear infrastructure and blocks its path to a bomb.

Yesterday, Senator Menendez—who along with Senator Kirk is the lead sponsor of the legislation—delivered a forceful speech on the Senate floor, in which he outlined what such a deal must include. In response, we issued a statement applauding Chairman Menendez's leadership. We strongly support his assessment of the threat, his commitment to the critical role Congress must play, and his path to passage of the legislation, which includes building broad bipartisan support.

I want to thank you for your hard work thus far in earning the support of 59 senators for the Menendez-Kirk bill. We still have much work to do over the coming months. It will be a long struggle, but one that we are committed to fighting.

We will continue to work closely with friends on both sides of the aisle, in both the House and Senate, to ensure that everything is done to prevent a nuclear weapons-capable Iran.

Sincerely, Michael Kassen
AIPAC President

AIPAC announced Thursday that it did not support an immediate vote on the Iran sanctions bill authored by Senators Mark Kirk and Bob Menendez, which looks unlikely to come to a vote. The announcement came the same day that the Republican cosponsors of the bill wrote to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid demanding a vote. Meanwhile, Menendez himself said that the bill should not become a "partisan issue" in a speech on the Senate floor, saying "I hope that we will not find ourselves in a partisan process trying to force a vote on a national security matter before its appropriate time."

AIPAC's yearly policy conference, where many of its major donors come, will take place in three weeks in Washington.

An AIPAC spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment.

“Olympic games are a sports festival embracing human diversity and great unity,” the International Olympic Committee head says. The IOC head did not, however, reference LGBT rights or Russia’s anti-LGBT laws directly — and asked world leaders not to politicize the games.

WASHINGTON — Moments after saying that the Olympics send a message "embracing human diversity" and unity, the head of the International Olympic Committee, Thomas Bach, told the crowd at the Winter Olympics opening ceremony in Sochi that world leaders should not place political disagreements "on the back of these athletes."

"Olympic sports unite the people," Bach told the crowd to applause, saying that Olympic athletes show the world that "it is possible, even as competitors, to live together under one roof in harmony with tolerance and without any form of discrimination for whatever reason."

He did not, however, specifically reference LGBT rights — as the head of the United Nations did to the IOC earlier this week — and did not mention Russia's anti-LGBT laws.

The comments came even as LGBT activists were arrested and later released for attempting to publicly display the non-discrimination principle of the Olympic Charter in St. Petersburg, and other activists were beaten and arrested in Moscow for waving rainbow pride flags in Red Square.

"Olympic games are always about building bridges to bring people together," Bach said. "Olympic games are never about erecting walls to keep people apart. Olympic games are a sports festival embracing human diversity and great unity."

"To the political leaders of the world," he then said, "Please respect their Olympic message of goodwill, of tolerance, of excellence, and of peace. Have the [inaudible] to address your disagreements in a peaceful, direct, political dialogue and not on the back of these athletes" — echoing comments he made earlier this week, comments widely seen as criticizing world leaders for staying away from the Sochi games.

View Video ›

“[I]n every place where a member of the Department of Justice stands on behalf of the United States – they will strive to ensure that same-sex marriages receive the same privileges, protections, and rights as opposite-sex marriages under federal law,” Attorney General Eric Holder is set to say tonight.

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Eric Holder is set to announce Saturday night that the Justice Department will do all it can "to ensure that same-sex marriages receive the same privileges, protections, and rights as opposite-sex marriages under federal law."

"On Monday, the Justice Department will issue a new policy memorandum that will – for the first time in history – formally instruct all Department employees to give lawful same-sex marriages full and equal recognition, to the greatest extent possible under the law," Holder is due to tell members and supports of the Human Rights Campaign at a fundraising dinner in New York City Saturday night.

The formal announcement follows advice given by the Justice Department in the months since the U.S. Supreme Court ended the Defense of Marriage Act's ban on the federal government recognizing same-sex couples' marriages.

The Justice Department has been working with various agencies at making the appropriate changes to federal policy after the June 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor, as well as making its own decisions about implementation and enforcement of federal law and regulations after Windsor.

For example, a month ago, Holder announced that "for purposes of federal law," same-sex couples married in Utah during the period when such marriages were granted there "will be recognized as lawful and considered eligible for all relevant federal benefits on the same terms as other same-sex marriages."

One of the biggest implementation issues across the government since the Windsor ruling has been whether the federal government would recognize same-sex couples' marriages for federal purposes based on the state were a couple is domiciled (generally, where the couple lives) or if it would instead, more broadly, recognize such marriages if valid in the place of celebration (where the couple got married). Although some laws require reliance on the "state of domicile" rule, LGBT advocates had been pressing the federal government to use the "place of celebration" rule wherever possible.

Across the federal government over the past months — from the State Department to the Internal Revenue Service — most implementation has used the "place of celebration" rule. Although the Justice Department did not release the actual policy memorandum at this time, Holder's remarks suggest that — absent a law specifying the "place of domicile" to be used for determining a marriage-linked government right, benefit or responsibility — the Justice Department's default position going forward will be to utilize a "place of celebration" rule.

Among the changes to result from this policy announcement, according to Holder's prepared remarks provided by the Justice Department:

· The Department will recognize that same-sex spouses of individuals involved in civil and criminal cases should have the same legal rights as all other married couples – including the right to decline to give testimony that might incriminate their spouse. The government will not object to an individual in a same-sex marriage invoking this right on the ground that the marriage is not recognized in the state where the couple lives.

· In bankruptcy cases, the U.S. Trustee Program will take the position that same-sex married couples should be treated in the same manner as opposite-sex married couples. This means that, among other things, same-sex married couples should be eligible to file for bankruptcy jointly, that certain debts to same-sex spouses or former spouses should be excepted from discharge, and that domestic support obligations should include debts, such as alimony, owed to a former same-sex spouse.

· Federal inmates in same-sex marriages will also be entitled to the same rights and privileges as inmates in opposite-sex marriages. This includes visitation by a spouse, inmate furloughs to be present during a crisis involving a spouse, escorted trips to attend a spouse's funeral, correspondence with a spouse, and compassionate release or reduction in sentence based on the incapacitation of an inmate's spouse.

Connecting the work he is advancing now to those of past Justice Department leaders, he is to say:

Just like during the civil rights movement of the 1960s, the stakes involved in this generation's struggle for LGBT equality could not be higher. Then, as now, nothing less than our country's commitment to the notion of equal protection under the law was on the line. And so the Justice Department's role in confronting discrimination must be as aggressive today as it was in Robert Kennedy's time. As Attorney General, I will not let this Department be simply a bystander during this important moment in history.

HRC president Chad Griffin said in a statement, "Attorney General Holder continues to show incredible leadership, and this latest action cements his place in history alongside Robert F. Kennedy, another attorney general who crusaded for civil rights."

This article was updated to include additional information about the impact of the policy announcement, with the final update at 5:35 p.m.

“Is unemployment insurance going to turn an election? No. But it’s helping drive the conversation away from Obamacare,” one national Democrat said.

Larry Downing / Reuters

WASHINGTON — With control of the Senate hanging in the balance Democrats are looking for every advantage they can get, and a drawn out battle over unemployment benefits might help sway the needle in their favor.

After a disastrous start to the Obamacare era, Senate Democrats facing tough midterm battles have had to fight off constant attacks from the right. On par with the Obama administration's renewed focus on income inequality, some experts say a pivot to their efforts on unemployment could prove vital.

And while the fate of an extension in the Senate remains unclear, it faces an even tougher battle if it does make it to the Republican-controlled House.

"Is unemployment insurance going to turn an election? No. But it's helping drive the conversation away from Obamacare," one national Democrat said.

The Emergency Unemployment Compensation program provides extended relief for long-term unemployed job seekers whose state benefits have run out.

The upper chamber has voted for several different plans to extend federal benefits for the long-term unemployed, but each has failed to garner the 60 votes needed to clear a procedural hurdle. The most recent attempt, a three-month extension with costs offset by pension smoothing, only needed one more Republican vote to pass.

Meanwhile, political posturing has turned the issue more into a war over words and procedure than a debate over policy or economics.

Though Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has brought several different plans to the floor, Republicans claim he isn't letting their voices be heard. Much of their complaints, on the floor and off, come from Reid's refusal to allow votes on GOP amendments.

"We've virtually got everything the Republicans asked," Reid said Thursday, referring to the inclusion of a provision suggested by Sen. Tom Coburn that prevents millionaires from receiving the benefits. "They'll come up with a lot of excuses why we can't do this, they want amendments...that is just a lost leader."

"There are other pay-for ideas, there are reforms," Sen. Mitch McConnell's spokesman Don Stewart told BuzzFeed in an email Tuesday. "But beyond all that, the fact that Reid gets to decide which ONE bill gets a vote and that no one else gets an opportunity to have amendments is at the heart of this whole thing. We could have been done months ago."

Jim Manley, a Democratic strategist and former spokesman for Reid, said blaming Reid for not playing fair won't resonate too far beyond the walls of the Capitol.

"That kind of inside baseball stuff doesn't play well with the Republicans at large," he said. "What will resonate is that Democrats are demanding a modest extension and Republicans are opposed to it, at least to date."

So far Democrats have offered a gamut of plans to extend the benefits, which expired Dec. 28. They've included a flat three-month extension without any cost offsets, the recent three-month extension offset by pension smoothing and an extension that would've lasted into November, but offsetting it with sequester cuts in 2024 didn't cut it for the GOP.

On it's face the question is simple: Should the long-term unemployed be subsidized by the federal government if they can't find work, but are trying? Democrats argue they should. The Republican consensus is a little more vague — they don't want to be callous towards those looking for work but they don't want the benefits to add to the debt either.

The economics of it are even murkier as the debate gets boggled down in macro and micro economic jargon. A December report from the White House's Council of Economic Advisers predicted allowing the unemployment benefits to expire would cost the economy 240,000 jobs in 2014.

But a separate independent study, which was referenced in the CEA report, predicted the negative effect on the labor force would outweigh job creation. In their response to the CEA, the study's authors, who come from the University of Pennsylvania and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, predicted that reinstating the benefits would ultimately lead to 2 million fewer jobs.

Nevertheless, Republicans remain unconvinced Democrats can avoid the ill effects of Obamacare by talking about unemployment benefits.

"The challenge for Democrats is that Obamacare is negatively impacting millions of Americans by taking more money out of their wallets and restricting access to their doctors. Trying to use unemployment insurance as a distraction only reminds voters exactly how bad the economy is and that Obama's promises for change came up empty," Republican strategist Ron Bonjean said. "The strategy is also designed to play to their liberal base who aren't thrilled with Obama's lack of progress during his presidency."

The hawkish former Bush envoy to the UN says he’s focused on helping Republicans in 2014 — but won’t deny rumors of a presidential run.

Bolton speaks during the 2013 NRA Annual Meeting.

Justin Sullivan / Getty Images

In a radio interview airing Sunday night, former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton addressed rumors of a potential 2016 presidential bid, saying he is increasingly concerned that national security is being ignored in the current political debate.

Bolton, a Republican who served under President George W. Bush and is primarily known for his hawkish foreign policy views, reportedly told donors at a Los Angeles fundraiser last month that he is "thinking about" running for president in the upcoming election.

Asked directly about the report by WABC host Aaron Klein, Bolton at first demurred, saying he is focused on the 2014 midterms. (Bolton has set up two political action committees to support GOP congressional candidates who share his views on national security.)

But he did little to quell the rumors.

"I thought about running for the presidency myself in 2011 and 2012 for exactly the reason we've been talking about — national security is simply not where it should be on our overall political agenda. I've really put 2016 aside because I think this upcoming election is so critical," he said. "But every day that goes by just increases my concern that our political leaders are not addressing mounting national securing challenges to the United States. And I think the people of this country deserve better than having these issues ignored."

Bolton's foreign policy platform would stand in contrast with those of many of his would-be contenders in the GOP, where Sen. Rand Paul's brand of libertarian Republicanism is ascendant, and many view the Bush-era approach to national security and foreign policy with skepticism. But Bolton could also provide a loud and influential voice to the intra-party debate over these issues, even if he is a long-shot to win the nomination.

Some Republicans are baffled by a group of House conservatives who want to bring a clean debt ceiling bill to the floor and force Democrats to pass it on their own. “It’s the ‘vote no, hope yes’ caucus,” said Rep. Adam Kinzinger.

Rep. Raúl Labrador.

Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call

WASHINGTON — Some Republicans are pushing back against a new conservative debt-limit strategy, saying it's the product of what one lawmaker called the "vote no, hope yes" caucus — putting all the pressure on moderate Republicans to avoid fiscal battles.

In recent weeks, a group of conservative Republicans have rallied around an unusual solution to the perennial battle: bring a so-called "clean" debt-ceiling increase to the floor, let Democrats pass it with a handful of Republicans, and move on.

It's a marked shift from the tactics of the previous three years, when conservatives rallied around the idea that must-meet deadlines like a debt-ceiling increase were the moments for the GOP-led House to fight with the president and Democrats over Republican priorities.

The "let Democrats pass it" approach has been embraced by a number of prominent House conservatives including Reps. Raúl Labrador, Michele Bachmann, Justin Amash, and Thomas Massie. The move, which has not been endorsed or floated by House leadership, would require either the majority of Republican members to vote "present" or have a handful of Republicans vote "yes" with Democrats to have such a bill clear the House.

But not everyone in the conference is particularly impressed by the idea.

"That doesn't garner my respect — that approach. To not even try and fight for something what that's saying is: 'The debt limit's got to be raised but I'll just leave it to a few who step up to the plate,' and I'm talking about Republicans to put that card in the slot and hit yes," said Virginia Republican Scott Rigell. "I don't have a lot of respect for that."

Rep. Adam Kinzinger, a Republican from Illinois, said that while Republicans shouldn't "shoot for the moon," but fight for something they see as achievable — like approval of the Keystone pipeline, he suggested. Like Rigell, he didn't see a Democratic-approved clean debt-ceiling vote as a particularly strong approach.

"Look, leadership isn't about voting present and taking the easy way out. Leadership is about taking a stand. What gets me about that is it's a tacit understanding by some in that group that the debt ceiling has to be increased… they understand it needs to be increased and yet they are unwilling to take a tough stand to increase it," he said. "Political courage isn't just saying no, it's finding a way to get to yes. Unfortunately, the vast majority of my colleagues are willing to find a way to get to yes, but a few aren't."

"It's the 'vote no, hope yes' caucus," he added.

Conservatives are defending the idea as not a change in tune — they all say they are still vehemently opposed to a clean debt ceiling increase — but rather an acknowledgement that the stand-offs have historically ended badly for the GOP, especially when President Obama and Democrats have said repeatedly they will not negotiate over the debt ceiling.

"We've had three years of fighting over the debt ceiling. Unfortunately we have not been victorious in many of those fights and the speaker should just allow the Democrats to pass a clean debt ceiling, the Democrats can own it," Labrador said this week at an event sponsored by the Heritage Foundation.

Another conservative Republican, who did not want to be named, said that leadership was so intent on getting something, even something small, attached to the debt ceiling they were needlessly entering into a losing battle.

"The concerns from a number of conservatives is that you apply some Mickey Mouse appendage to the debt ceiling that doesn't accomplish anything," the Republican said. "You aren't really doing anything, but you are fighting about this and you are giving the president a sledgehammer to beat you over the head so why go through all of that on a vote you know you are going to lose?"

House Speaker John Boehner said last week in a news conference that Republican leadership was still searching for something to attach to the debt ceiling that would get a healthy number of Republican votes but was still looking. Several proposals, including approval of the Keystone Pipeline or a repeal of Obamacare's "risk corridors" were rejected because they would not get 218 Republican votes. Boehner has repeatedly said House Republicans will come up with something and he does not want the country to default on it's debt.

He acknowledged that Republicans will also likely need Democratic votes, and Boehner joked about the difficulty of wrangling his conference into agreement on how to raise the debt ceiling.

"Mother Teresa is a saint now. But you know, if the Congress wanted to make her a saint and attach that to the debt ceiling, we probably couldn't get 218 Republican votes," the speaker said.

DreamWorks Animation CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg used to be close with the Clintons — until he threw them over for Barack Obama in 2007. Now he wants to send Hillary to the White House in 2016.

Robert Galbraith / Reuters

During a trip to Los Angeles last year, Hillary Clinton didn't leave town before meeting with the man who wants to make her president: Jeffrey Katzenberg.

It was spring. Clinton was a few months out from her job at the State Department. Hundreds of thousands of people were clicking like on a Facebook page called "Ready for Hillary." A small group of operatives in Washington were plotting to make the Democratic Party's largest super PAC, Priorities USA Action, the biggest, best Clinton game in town.

And Katzenberg, the short and intense 63-year-old movie executive funding Priorities, was positioning himself, publicly and privately, as Clinton's top money man ahead of the next presidential race.

The private, and previously unreported, springtime meeting affirmed Katzenberg's second coming inside Clinton circles. Seven years ago, the DreamWorks Animation CEO was at the center of a high-profile act of political betrayal, spurning his old friends Bill and Hillary Clinton for a young Illinois senator named Barack Obama in the earliest months of the Democratic primary. Andy Spahn, Katzenberg's longtime political adviser, also attended the 2013 meeting. He described the conversation as "just old friends catching up." But a potential White House bid was discussed, according to two other people with direct knowledge of the meeting.

Katzenberg, one source added, pushed Clinton to have a smarter team in 2016.

The admonition speaks to the peculiar power dynamic between the pair. Months after the L.A. meeting, The Hollywood Reporter detailed a "secret call" from Katzenberg to Clinton. As he put it to the magazine himself, he assured Clinton he'd be "happy to support her." Katzenberg, a source in the story adds, was "favorably impressed" by the former secretary of state during the call.

Katzenberg, a hard-working, hard-charging titan in Hollywood and in Democratic politics, has been as aggressive in his early work for Clinton's as he has in his 40 years in the movie business. In the last year, he has emerged at the center of the swelling network of Clinton donors, fundraisers, and strategists making early moves to back her, should she decide to run for president again. And those familiar with Katzenberg's political operation say he wants to be the central figure in the operation that could launch Clinton into office — largely by way of his role with Priorities USA.

Democrats close to Katzenberg attribute the intensity of his early 2016 efforts to his complicated 20-year history with the Clintons.

During the Clinton administration, Katzenberg and his two business partners, David Geffen and Steven Spielberg, were frequent companions of the first family. The three Hollywood mainstays thought up the idea for their film studio, DreamWorks SKG, after a dinner in the White House with Bill and Hillary in 1994. (Geffen stayed overnight in the Lincoln Bedroom.) Los Angeles joked that SKG — the "dream team," as Katzenberg called it — would one day hire President Clinton when he was out of work in Washington. Later, two months after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke, it was Katzenberg who loaned the Clintons his Utah ski lodge, a log mansion inside a gated resort near Deer Valley, to celebrate Chelsea's 18th birthday in peace. One year later, Katzenberg had them back for Chelsea's 19th too.

But SKG's relationships had been, first of all, with Bill Clinton, And in February 2007, the three made their break from the Hillary campaign. Katzenberg, Geffen, and Spielberg invited hundreds to a fundraiser at the Beverly Hilton Hotel to anoint Hollywood's new star: Obama. That same night, a lacerating Maureen Dowd column quoting Geffen went live on the New York Times website. The Clintons, Geffen lamented, lie "with such ease, it's troubling." The comments would cement the SKG-Clinton rift, and the fundraiser, which raised Obama $1.3 million, would touch off Katzenberg's political ascent.

Their surprise shift to Obama was a seismic event in Democratic politics, an elite defection that exposed a massive and unexpected weakness in a group the Clintons had considered friends. It was, to the Clintons, a deep, personal betrayal. But for Katzenberg, it certainly paid off: He enjoys an even higher level of influence with Obama than he had during the Clinton years. The president has called Katzenberg an "extraordinary friend" on more than one occasion. Last August, Katzenberg dined privately in the president's Los Angeles hotel room. In addition to the $3 million he gave Priorities USA during the reelection, Katzenberg raised a reported $2 million for the campaign with Spahn.

Katzenberg's current level of contact with Hillary Clinton remains an open question. One person close to the executive said, "There seems to be a real relationship developing."

"He's going to do what he has to do to get back to being a principal player with Hillary," said one longtime Los Angeles-based strategist, adding that Katzenberg would need to "do more" than others if he wants to "be back in that orbit as one of the most closely help people."

Last August, Clinton called at least one person to ask if Katzenberg was capable of delivering on fundraising promises, according to the person she contacted.

Among Clinton's associates in Hollywood, Katzenberg is unique in his status as a writer and raiser — a donor both capable of writing big checks and willing to do the legwork of soliciting contributions. Nearly three years ago, Katzenberg helped start Priorities USA from almost nothing — a first check for $2 million helped turn the four-person startup into the well-known ad machine that raised and spent $65 million for Obama's reelection campaign.

Clinton donors like media magnate Haim Saban and singer Barbara Streisand are "not going to pick up the phone and call 100 people," one Los Angeles fundraiser said. "Jeffrey will."

Priorities USA secured 29 checks from individual donors for $1 million or more during the Obama reelection campaign. Katzenberg himself solicited about a dozen of those, according to one person familiar with the group's fundraising efforts. These days, he's made it a personal mission to help Alison Lundergan Grimes unseat Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in Kentucky. He sent a fundraising letter to Democrats in California on her behalf last fall. After the appeal, he sent personal follow-up messages forcing the point.

Katzenberg gets in the weeds. He treats his political endeavors with the same attention to detail and fanatical work ethic he has become known in Hollywood. After four decades in entertainment — a career that took him from Walt Disney, where he oversaw blockbusters like "Beauty and the Beast" and "Aladdin," to DreamWorks Animation — Katzenberg has fashioned himself as one of the hardest-working rich men in the business.

When he worked at Disney, needed two secretaries to cover his day in shifts. He drank two to three Diet Coke six-packs every 24 hours. He once described his idea of an "exhilarating moment" as "standing on the edge of a precipice of snow, looking down a 70-degree angle."

He was aspirational in the largest ways, and obsessive in the smallest. When he was promoting "Beauty and the Beast," he would say that every frame had been "infused with ambition." When he launched DreamWorks SKG, he told reporters his goal was "a revolution" in film. And when he worked on the film The Prince of Egypt, one of DreamWorks's first big pictures, he studied his subject relentlessly. He read the Koran. He showed drafts of the script to the Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem, to the Vatican, to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

But the legend of Jeffrey Katzenberg begins in New York City in politics. In 1965, kid Jeffrey was just 14 years old when he volunteered on the mayoral campaign of Republican John Lindsay. The head of field operations, Sid Davidoff, nicknamed him "Squirt." They wouldn't let the name go until Katzenberg turned 20. "He just showed up one day," Davidoff remembered. "Not quite sure how. But once he got there, he never left."

Katzenberg was the last one to leave, and the first one to come in, and did just about every job once on the campaign. Richard Aurelio, who managed Lindsay's reelection race, described the young Katzenberg as a "gopher," he said. "He was sort of an omnipresent figure who somehow sneaked into every meeting."

He was also keen on watching Aurelio deal with donors. One day in 1969, an 18-year-old Katzenberg sat in the back of the room at Lindsay campaign headquarters, the Roosevelt Hotel in Midtown, watching Aurelio court a businessman from the Bronx. The donor left without making a contribution. Days later, it wasn't Aurelio but Katzenberg who followed up with the Bronx man, who secured the donation.

Katzenberg never stopped working. He dropped out of college and went from the Lindsay administration to a few odd jobs, to Paramount, to Disney — a job that ended with an infamous split from his mentor and boss Michael Eisner.

In recent years, Katzenberg has said he's mellowed. But his efforts in politics don't appear to have diminished, even as Priorities USA has finally transitioned to a Clinton operation after nearly a year of internal discussions.

Now focused on the next presidential race, Priorities will be co-chaired by former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a longtime Hillary Clinton supporter, and by Obama campaign manager Jim Messina, with whom Katzenberg worked frequently in 2012.

The movie chief doesn't play a day-to-day role in the super PAC, but he has been a driving force in major strategic decisions. He both pulls the strings of the group and keeps himself at a distance, dealing mostly frequently with Spahn, Messina, or Paul Begala, the former Clinton adviser who first pitched Katzenberg on Priorities at a Beverly Hills Italian restaurant three years ago alongside the PAC's co-founders, Bill Burton and Sean Sweeney.

Katzenberg does not have free-wheeling control of the group. He was at odds with several members of Priorities USA over whether the PAC should play in certain House and Senate races this year, according to two people familiar with the discussions. Katzenberg, the sources said, wanted the group to be involved in the midterms, but lost that battle. The PAC confirmed last week that they would sit this year's election cycle out.

Where Katzenberg has been most vocal is in his dislike of Ready for Hillary, the "grassroots super PAC" focused on building data-driven voter files.

Ready for Hillary was founded last January, and by spring it was clear the group wasn't going anywhere — the brand name had stuck ("I'm Ready!") and the PAC's social media presence was growing, fast. The Hollywood contingent of Priorities wanted the group shut down, according to three people close to discussions at the time, because of a concern about competing for donors and a feeling that there "was now this other entity that could get credit," as one of those sources put it. John Podesta, the former Clinton loyalist originally billed to co-chair Priorities with Messina until he left for the White House instead, was one person who raised the idea of a merger, which was dismissed.

When Ready for Hillary placed a voluntary $25,000 cap on contributions last summer, as a signal to donors that Priorities USA would emerge as the big-money entity, Hollywood was surprised. They had expected and hoped for a $5,000 limit instead, two sources close to both groups said. The confusion was a simple "miscommunication," one person said. But the flap over contributions only added to what was, by then, mounting tension between the two groups. The strained relations had become so troublesome that, as Politico reported, Clinton herself was forced to address the run-in internally.

At an organizing event last month in Des Moines, Iowa, Ready for Hillary senior adviser Craig Smith, a longtime Clinton hand from Arkansas, said the tension between the two groups has subsided since last year.

"I think everybody's happy. There's still a few grumpy people," Smith said in a brief interview. "I keep telling everybody, 'Look, we're all on the same damn team. Let's just work together.'"

"From the institutional piece of it, everybody's on the same page," Smith said, before adding that there were "still some outliers."

As Priorities USA heats up, Katzenberg is likely to become more prominent — the closest thing Clinton has to a Sheldon Adelson, the casino owner and Republican bankroller. The major difference is that Katzenberg's policy agenda is unclear. Adelson demanded in his candidates an aggressive U.S. foreign policy and a firm defense of Israel. Katzenberg's fundraising has brought him access to the last two Democratic presidents, but his motivations remain opaque.

People close to him say he cares about an array of progressive issues, rather than one or two passions, and has no interest for now in the ambassadorships and political appointments so coveted by other donors and fundraisers.

Three years ago, Katzenberg did gain access through two administration events, including with Vice President Joe Biden, to Xi Jinping, who would later become president of China, while he was working on a deal to open an animation studio in Shanghai. When Katzenberg announced the plans would move forward, he told the Financial Times the deal required Xi's personal approval. DreamWorks denied the White House was involved in facilitating the project.

"This is one of those situations where people have tried to say what he wants from Obama, and now from Clinton," said the California fundraiser.

"It's not power for power's sake," the person said. "He just likes being that guy."

Aurelio, who still keeps in touch with Katzenberg, said he would have been surprised if the teenage operative he knew in the '60s wasn't still involved in politics at some level.

"It doesn't shock me that he would come back to it, considering how enthusiastic he was as a young guy," said Aurelio. "Nothing could knock the politics out of him."

The Atlantic Country Democratic Committee is asking for a federal investigation into the National Republican Congressional Committee’s use of mock campaign websites.

One of the NRCC's websites against a Democratic challenger.

Via billhughesjrforcongress.com

WASHINGTON— A New Jersey Democratic group will formally request a federal investigation against the political arm of the House GOP with the Federal Election Committee over fundraising websites Democrats charge are misleading and potentially illegal.

The Atlantic County Democratic Committee is filing the first official complaint Monday morning against the National Republican Congressional Committee, Rep. Frank LoBiondo, and his reelection committee over a slew of NRCC-owned fundraising websites attacking LoBiondo's challenger, Bill Hughes Jr.

The Hughes websites are part of a larger NRCC digital campaign targeting Democrats: The site URLs seem supportive of the Democratic candidate and often look very similar to an official campaign site. The group has come under fire recently for similar websites in different districts, after it was reported that a supporter for a Democratic candidate in Florida mistakenly gave money to the group through one of the websites. At least 15 such sites have been created. The content of the page is against the Democratic candidate and a smaller disclaimer at the bottom states the page was created by the NRCC.

For example, billhughesjrforcongress.com directs to a page with a large banner that says, "Need to get out of jail? Better Call Bill!" but then goes on to say Hughes has been "helping New Jersey's most corrupt criminals since 2002."

"As part of its fundraising efforts, since October 2013, the NRCC has recently engaged in deceptive, misleading and potentially fraudulent activity by establishing a website that is branded as the website of a Democratic congressional candidate," the complaint reads. "The website is seeking donations — and thus seeks to profit in bad faith, through false, fraudulent and deceptive tactics — from utilizing the name of a Democratic congressional candidate all in violation of [U.S. code]."

The complaint says even the content of the attack website only "discusses legal matters Hughes worked on in a biographical tone," and the disclaimer comes after a large "DONATE" button.

The NRCC has defended the practice as both legal and effective but have also said they will return money to anyone who says they mistakenly donated.

"I think that sites are clear in terms of the disclosure and the content where were coming from," NRCC press secretary Daniel Scarpinato told CNN last week. "And I also think it's important for voters to get all the perspectives on the candidates. So just as a candidate is going to put information out about themselves, we're going to put out information about the candidate that they are not putting out that we think is important for voters to know."

Read the full complaint below.